alexpaynter: I hear many "serious" photographers who say they just want a camera with full control and no fancy features like wifi or 3G etc. They claim to be about the photography but often they are caught up in the style of a camera.
I like control over a camera but it can be done just as easily or more so through a touch screen. WeJust have to find a logical way to do this. It has been done on phones somewhat successfully. There is no reason why it can't be done here also.
Don't get me wrong. I love the Fuji X100S and I might even buy one. But what it it had a touch screen on the whole back. When you look through the viewfinder the top right could be for exposure compensation an the left for aperture. Some software could drive the touch control even if you can't see the slider or feel it. You will see te result in the viewfinder.
Put a Tegra 4 chip with wifi, GPS, 4G and a full HD IGZO screen and you are set. It might not have the beautiful form of an X100 but it would be more functional.
Also some other ideas might be touch to focus and slide to shoot. This would get rid of the shake when shooting.
Once you look aware from the viewfinder you would have the basi menu on the screen to make further adjustments.
There are so many ways to improve function and reliability (touch screens do not wear like buttons) and many of these do not require retro looks. That is Homer Simpson mentality.
Well you could set it up so that when your eye is in the viewfinder the touch screen acts like a touch pad. You dont need to see anything. Top right for Exposure compensation. Top left for aperture. Slide up to increase and down to decease.
I have made mention of this in other threads but i will bring it up again. I used to have a Canon MC camera. It was 35 mm f2.8 film but very compact.
Of course it is nice to have a zoom but many enthusiasts are now opting for fixed lenses like Fuji X100s. I know some of those photographers want a contol ring on the lens but with auto focus getting better with every generation how often will we use manual focus. And with a couple of easily accessible control dials at the finger tips the lens dial wont be missed.
Was there something intrinsically different about the Canon MC which allowed its lens to be so compact? I would really love a full size sensor without the projecting lens. Especially with a Fuji style sensor. Even though it would be a compact it doess not mean the should skimp on the lens quality.
A camera like this would be my ideal. Basically it would be a full frame X100s but more compact.
My only other gripe is that compact cameras do not have stronger built in flashes. The X100s has a guide number of 9. The canon 60d has 12. They could at least match this. I believe that with modern technology a guide number of more than 15 should be possible with a lens angle equivalent of 35 mm on a full frame.
SleepyHammer: It helps me to compare to other things in my life. Compared to guitars which are both tools and inspiration, cameras are tools. Although I do like how my sexy metal Nikon film camera feels. And in the end, it's all just objects. Stupid question.
Guitarists do not often appreciate beauty of function. At least for electric guitars. They just want to turn it up to 11. Otherwise innovative manufactures like Klein would still be in business.
There are many kinds of beauty. Two which apply here are beauty of form and beauty of function. Maybe beauty of craftsmanship also. The Italian's have a reputation for beauty of form. The German's for beauty of function and craftsmanship.
If someone makes a 10 times zoom lens with 19 elements and someone makes the same lens with 10 elements in a package half the size with the same quality and usability I will buy the latter because there is beauty in simplicity of design. Perhaps we could call this Occam's beauty or OKcam beauty.
There is a beauty in having all buttons and switches in the right positions. There is beauty in having logical menus with icons that have meaning or with words to describe those functions.
There is also beauty in the status quo. If we accept that the Leica is beautiful then the design should incorporate the ability to change sensor and processor easily. That would make it more beautiful or perhaps elegant.
In any case this argument is quite sane in comparison to hifi.
I hear many "serious" photographers who say they just want a camera with full control and no fancy features like wifi or 3G etc. They claim to be about the photography but often they are caught up in the style of a camera.
If this has the same sensor as the x10 then it is a pointless upgrade. This sensor is bettered by many cameras in the category.
There is no point going to larger format unless you want more pixels or the ability to resolve detail in lower light. This does neither.
Obviously all those photographers who take great pride in the fact that they provided feedback to Leica, have given the wrong feedback.
Does it really cost anything to leave movie mode in?
They removed it just to make the leap to the M9 justified.
Is that a second viewfinder mounted on top. Perhaps if Leica feels the centre is the best position for a viewfinder, they should put it there in the first place.
Apple are patting themselves on the back for all this new technology and yet they have not been able to invent the lens cap yet. No camera without protection for the lens is serious.
_sem_: Apple copying oversized tablet phone form from Samsung and HTC :) :) :) Fashion will have to adapt with bigger pockets ;)
By moving from 3:2 to 16:9 I would say that they are following most Android phones. Except that they have more pixels. I would say the Lumia 920 and Optimus G are now the exceptions.
Apparently it is an accomplishment to make something small. Anybody can make something big. Why have a tablet then. Sometimes it is a choice to make something larger. I personally prefer a screen that is a little larger.
It is hard to see a difference between the 4S and 5 in photo quality. My feeling is that the Lumia 920 will be a superior camera especially in low light.
Richard Murdey: An "A" for effort, it was an idea that had to be tried.
Digital cameras with capacitive touchscreens and fluid "smartphone-like" menu navigation are long overdue. I'm just not convinced this "compact camera + iPod touch" hybrid is what people were waiting for...
So you have already conceded that Android is an Apple product.
benjicon: I think Apple missed the boat with this one.. I cant imagine Pentax, Sony, or Canon wanting to partner with them .. Maybe Olympus would like too as a kind of life line ..
I dont see how adding functionality to a device can be a negative thing. Point and shoots are a good platform to test on, more and more recently I have cursed my phones camera quality and wished I had a decent camera with an internet connection and apps so I can upload better quality images sooner.
Personally I think its a great idea, given a little time and refinement it will develop into something we all end up benefiting from, the obvious plus to a mobile OS is that you can incorporate tried and tested internet and network solutions, be it mobile data or wifi, also a huge amount of useful apps, imagine Flickr, Facebook or Photobucket, shoot photos, immediate upload to online account, could even shoot with out on board storage. About time this pushed ahead.
Don't worry Apple will find a way to claim it as their own and sue everybody. But not necessarily in that order. And the faithfull will follow.
Manufacturers often respond to criticisms but usually in a political way. This is however a well informed technical response from a design team that has considered a lot of variables. Kudos to Nokia.
Micro 4/3 cameras of today have better resolution than the full frame cameras at the last Olympics. They are also much better in low light situations.
The SLR fanboys would have told you how amazing those cameras were at the last Olympics, but now they are saying cameras with better performance are not up to the job.
SLRs still focus more quickly but the gap is narrowing.
The only area of significant difference would be the depth of field. I don't understand the theory but apparently f1.8 on a micro 4/3 is equivalent to f3.6 on a full frame as far as DOF is concerned. In some cases this would benefit the smaller camera and sometimes the larger.
PerL: He would be better of with a Nikon 3200 or the cheapest Canon rebel DSLR.But I am sure he will be able to fight the camera and get some good shots, and some poor people actually will believe that m43 are as good as pro DSLRs.
Maybe I am seeing the comparison images incorrectly. I am assuming that this will have the same image sensor as the OMD. From what I can see the OMD is clearer than both the cameras you mentioned. If you put some good glass on it I don't see why you should get very good results.
Sephirotic: i'm the only one that over the 10mpx mark doesn´t care anymore for more resolution, but only on actual pixel-dot size? Larger the better?
This camera has a pp of 1.6 microns. Roughly the same of a standard 10mpx P&S.
i'm the only one that finds ridiculous to see how all the companies are dropping the mpx race and rolling back their maximun resolutiom even on prosumer/enthusiast market to the 10~12mpx mark while sony alone keeps running alone increasing their resolution and sacrificing IQ at iso 400+? Look at the noise of this camera at ISO 800, is awfull.
Not alone i find ridiculous this posture of Sony, i see no point at all in this camera at this price point. i can have a larger sensor (4/3), virtually the same body size with much better overall IQ, specially at low light for a LOWER PRICE POINT (either pen, or gf3).
What's the point of this camera again? Another Sony camera im passing. Try decreasing your resolution next time and i may consider buying from you guys again
I believe this camera has 13.2/5462 mm per pixel or 2.4213 microns. Some of the other comparable cameras do not give the actual sensor size in mm of width or height in these reviews. I guess I could figure it out from the aspect ratio. The Canon G1x is close to 4.3.
There are other factors however. Not all sensors are the same. If you look at the performance of the Olympus OMD, the performance it achieves from a 4/3 sensor is much better than almost all APSC.
I am not sure what all the fuss is about here. People complaining about comparing different genres. Who cares if professionals don't use live view. How many readers here are professionals.
For me IQ is important but when I look at the comparison charts it looks to me like the much smaller sensor OMD is much better than this.
Personally I don't care is a camera is mirror less or SLR. I am only interested in quality, speed and compactness.